IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Aircraft Swap - Scene From 9/11: Intercepted

Rating 5 V
 
Cheap Shot
post Jun 11 2011, 01:48 PM
Post #21





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 11
Joined: 26-August 07
Member No.: 1,857



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 9 2011, 02:40 PM) *
I never heard you say Delaware and it is not on the recordings i provided above. This doesn't mean you never said it, but the recordings speak for themselves. The rest people will just have to take your word i suppose. With that said, what made you assume a "source of power in this country" was the next target when a Civilian target was just attacked, twice....? Philly has a lot of civilians, no? Philly has quite a source of "power" as well.

False. Your inaccurate position report had everything to do with a change in routing for the Otis Fighters from the Z-point into W-105.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/ZpointNYC.mp3 - 648kb download

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/15EofJFK.mp3 - 155kb download

Again, anytime you wish to answer my questions, feel free. Why did you repeatedly report last known position of AA11 as 15 East of JFK and 8 East of JFK?? If it was a mistake, do you always make mistakes like this and repeat them through the system? I've seen ATC get a cardinal direction wrong, heck, i've done it myself, but i never seen anyone in such a position repeat such a mistake. It is usually corrected in the same sentence.

In one of my transmissions I did say Deleware as well, maybe it was not recorded, I also had several calls with FACSFAC VACAPES regarding AAL11 still in the air, but those recordings were never retrieved.

I made at least six position reports regarding AAL11, they never identified the aircraft, they beleive they may have got one hit on my last report 8 East of JFK. If they would have departed earlier we would have got them towrads the plane. They wouldn't depart without an ID.

As far as what I determined was thier next target that was me trying to do my job, it was my guess, AAL11 was heading down towards the coast so that was my call. We assumed at Boston Center that the aircraft was landing JFK. The groundspeed on the aircraft had slowed considerably so we had assumed the aircraft had descended. When on the telcon thay said the aircraft was still airborne we were confused, the only assumption was it must be staying low and heading down the coast. That is also why I called FACSFAC VACAPES (Giant Killer) becasue they had additiional radar sites along the coast.

To no avail because there never was an aircraft.

When I stated the location reference JFK it was not the airport it was the VOR, regardless the VOR lat/long is about a mile from the center point of the airport lat/long, so they are still close.

cheap shot
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cheap Shot
post Jun 11 2011, 01:57 PM
Post #22





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 11
Joined: 26-August 07
Member No.: 1,857



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 9 2011, 02:40 PM) *
Again, anytime you wish to answer my questions, feel free. I will have more for you when you get done with the first set.

I will answer them when ever I get a chance, I have never been advised by the FAA not to talk about 9-11, I don't need to make stuff up becasue then I wouldn't be credible. I can't give an accurate chronology of events, I have tried numerous times but my mind fails me due to so many events over a short time period. I try my best, you question me saying Deleware, it might not be on the recording you heard but I did say it, just can't remember to who. So ask away, I'll try not take it to personal when you disagree. I worked with DRG on several occasions we don't agree much but our discussions are always with respect. I would like to try and keep it that way with you and your site as well.

cheap shot
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jun 11 2011, 02:04 PM
Post #23



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Hi Colin,

If you heard AA11 still airborne from FAA HQ, why did you tell NEADS the report came from Washington Center?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Scoggins_Phantom_AA11.mp3

I agree with you that the targets could have been intercepted if the Fighters were launched earlier and it is covered in our presentation. But other factors were involved as well, such as inaccurate position reports repeated through the system.

Now lets get back to the original question....

Can you please explain to us why ATC would turn two eastbound aircraft from separate paths, nearly 180 degrees westbound, to fly virtually in formation with two other transport category aircraft flying in opposite direction?

Again, this stuck out as a sore thumb to me and many pilots I have consulted, many of which are Fighter Jocks. It looked like a Fighter Intercept, but it could have also been an aircraft swap.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jun 11 2011, 05:18 PM
Post #24





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,909
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



CS

Welcome to the forum.

It appears you have a long row to hoe... whistle.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cheap Shot
post Jun 11 2011, 06:29 PM
Post #25





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 11
Joined: 26-August 07
Member No.: 1,857



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 9 2011, 04:04 PM) *
If you heard AA11 still airborne from FAA HQ, why did you tell NEADS the report came from Washington Center?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Scoggins_Phantom_AA11.mp3

I never siad that I got this information from Washington Center, and I said it was en route to Washington, in the second voice clip, Huntress states that they say I got it from Washington (they are assuming it was Washington Center), as far as the 180 degree turns I will look at them tomorrow.

Cheap Shot
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sergio
post Jun 11 2011, 06:32 PM
Post #26





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 46
Joined: 15-February 11
Member No.: 5,658



Hi Cheap Shot,
I would like to take this opportunity to ask you some questions related to an interview you gave some time ago on 911 myths. It's exactly the same issue discussed in this topic, so it would be great if you could provide some additional information I need.

QUOTE
911myths: Why did you believe that Flight 11 may still be in the air?
CS: I was listening on a Telcon with some people at Washington HQ, and other facilities as well, but don't know who they were. Didn't know the people at FAA HQ either. It was some kind of security telcon. I was in contact with many people at that time, UAL175 had crashed. NEADS was interested in Tail Numbers of AAL11 and UAL175. I believe it was either Dan Bueno the Supervisor in charge, or Bo Dean who made some initial calls to the airlines requesting if their aircraft were down, and tail number information. UAL Airlines replied within minutes that they could confirm UAL 175 was down, and they had the tail number. AAL Airlines was totally different. They do what I think they are supposed to do, by locking down their computer after an aircraft crashes, but when they did that, they couldn't access passenger lists, route of flight, it locks everyone out. So we never got confirmation that the plane was down. Somehow this either got misconstrued, and ended up in FAA channels, indicating the plane never crashed, or what I think happened is that someone in HQ knew that AAL77 was missing, and when they were talking about AAL77 they may have dropped the numbers and were reporting that AAL was still missing or still flying but no one knew where. I think this ended up on the telcon as AAL 11 is still airborne. From my point of view the aircraft was heading south at low altitude and we had lost radar, my only guess was he was heading for Washington DC. I found out years later and I am 99% certain the person who made that call on the telcon was Dave Canoles, he has since retired. I took the information I received and called NEADS almost instantly, can't tell you who I told that to, I talked with so many people there the whole day.
911myths: Several 9/11 researchers authors have reported that the “phantom flight 11” was spotted on radar. Is that true?
CS: I have no idea where that came from. Once we lost the aircraft we never even had a hint of another target. I even called FACSFAC VACAPES which has radar up and down the coast, to look for targets, they didn't come up with any.
911myths: If it was never on radar, why say it was going to Washington?
CS: Again it was just my hunch, as where they were heading. The aircraft would have enough gas to get there even at low altitude, but if the aircraft was heading to Cuba, it would never make it at low altitude. Couldn't think of any other important targets on the east coast, so that was where my mind was. I also tried to guess where the aircraft would be at the speed it was traveling.


First you say:
I took the information I received and called NEADS almost instantly, can't tell you who I told that to, I talked with so many people there the whole day.

Then you say:
From my point of view the aircraft was heading south at low altitude and we had lost radar, my only guess was he was heading for Washington DC.

Was it an information or was it just your point of view then? Which of these statements within the same interview is true? This makes a big difference.
You said there was no target on the radar, right? Nor you can recall any identified source for that information (the name Dave Canoles only emerged later thanks to a researcher, according to your own words). Right? Now my question is: how can someone call NORAD to inform that a target he never saw on the radar (your own words) is flying from New York to Washington somewhere over New Jersey (your own words), assume that such a target is Flight 11 (who apparently had crashed into the North Tower more than half an hour before) without any real information or any reliable identified source? Are you telling us it is normal to inform NORAD based on pure assumptions? Was your task as military liaison at Boston FAA to inform NORAD also about hear say or pure speculations? Sorry, but I can hardly believe this and nothing you said so far helped much to clarify my doubts.

Moreover, I can hardly imagine how someone at FAA HQ or Washington Center could mistake the missing Flight 77 with the phantom track of Flight 11. At 9:21 (the time you called NORAD) apparently nobody in Washington or in the USA knew about the position of AA-77. Flight 77 was lost at 8:56 somewhere between the Ohio and Kentucky border. Indianapolis ATC believed it crashed. Wherever Flight 77 was at 9:21, in no way it could be between New York and Washington DC and honestly I can't figure out how someone, no matter who or from where in the telcom, could make such an assumption. How could a plane which had been lost hundreds of miles West of Washington be mistaken with a plane flying North East of Washington and coming from New York at 9:21? You had no target on the screen, you had no clear identifiable source you could recall at a glance, you had no reliable information. In spite of this, you called NORAD at 9:21 informing that Flight 11 was still airborne somewhere over NJ. In my humble opinion, either your call was based on some real information you're hiding us for some unknown reasons or we must conclude that it is a normal practice for military liaisons to call NORAD and give false reports based on pure speculations, which of course I can hardly believe.

Sorry, I don't mean to be aggressive nor I am blaming you for anything. I understand you made 40 calls to NORAD that day, I understand how frantic those moments must have been. Still I find there are a lot of blatant contradictions in your story and your answers so far have been very vague and unclear.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jun 11 2011, 06:43 PM
Post #27



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Cheap Shot @ Jun 11 2011, 06:29 PM) *
I never siad that I got this information from Washington Center,


Yes you did.

Listen to it again Colin, this is exactly what you said when referring to "AA11 somewhere south over NJ".

I'll bold your own words for you...

"...this is a report here from Washington Center, you might want to get someone on another phone to Washington Center... see if they have him tracked up..."


Listen to your own words at 36 seconds, in the following recording.




That is your voice... yes?

The second voice clip on the above recording is NEADS talking to Washington Center asking them about AA11 still airborne. ZDC replies they were under the impression AA11 already crashed into the towers.

I ask again...

If you are now claiming you heard AA11 still airborne from FAA HQ, why did you tell NEADS the report came from Washington Center on Sept 11, 2001?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CuriousGeorge2
post Jun 11 2011, 08:16 PM
Post #28





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 40
Joined: 19-August 10
Member No.: 5,218



This story is PUBLISHED at 911NewsCentral.com. Link: http://bit.ly/lC3Bem
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Jun 12 2011, 09:23 AM
Post #29





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 560
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 10 2011, 07:51 AM) *
Dear Culper

Please don't give up, it will be very interesting to see what you have got.

Robert


I understand you have image files on your computer that you'd like to post
here?

Then you need to upload them to an image hosting site, there are many.
Use google to find one you like, probably a free one. Then get the url
of the image and post it here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I posted here a long time ago, "Flight of the Bumble Planes":
Google Results

Stuck with me, not because it was so "on point", because
at that time, it seemed rather foolish and was being ridiculed
widely. But, there did seem to be within it, some rational elements
of deception, that might later prove useful, in explaining what had
occurred that day. And so it has come to pass.

If you think about 9-11 in terms of an operation so big, that to
conduct it you'd need official approvals, then you'd expect that,
like "Northwoods", the only rational way to sell such a plan, would
be to offer that no citizen would be harmed.

Next, try to separate 911 into it's separate elements: radar presentations,
audio presentations, visual presentations, boarding gate control, security
video control, physical evidence presentations, witness presentations and
narrative control, etc., you get the idea of how many compartments are
necessary and how much coordination is needed, to accomplish the
illusion that skyjacked planes, loaded with real passengers were crashed,
when they really were not. (Northwoods style)

These "higher ups" are going to be watching things closely as the plan
unfolds, so the "escapes" for the real passengers must be credibly there
for presentation to these officials. However, once the mission is underway,
these officials who gave their approvals, are "locked in" for the ride! So,
they would not be very easily fooled, into approving a plan that they
could see might go wrong and make them responsible for atrocities that
could plague their conscience.

However, they could not know that -- although they had the air segment
of the plan covered, by requiring verified reports regarding passenger safety,
after the planes had been switched out -- that the people in the buildings,
might not be able to escape, as it had been represented that they would.
Those who approved of the plan, would want to speak with the passengers,
or hear and see them, after they'd been taken to safety. Otherwise they'd
order the plan scrapped and switch to some other plan, probably making
scapegoats of those who failed to implement the plan "properly", and call
the rest of it off.

Instead, the passengers would be confirmed to be safe, thereby letting
the operators proceed with the second part of the plan. Which would probably
have been to make it appear that planes had struck the towers, in such a
way that those in the buildings would have time to evacuate. This is the
point where the plan went "wrong". The stairways were made impassable,
meaning that people who should have evacuated, could not. All that would
take is to add a few more explosives to the stairwells, than should have been
there.

One could reason, under the above postulates, the plan to invade Iraq would
not be allowed to go forward, if there were no deaths of Americans, because
the whole thing would be more "controllable", and those who gave initial
approval, would be free to back out, using some other plan 'b'. But with
these deaths, they were locked in, since things had escalated to levels much
higher than anyone had thought. So that everyone involved must now
resort to covering things up, and that involved placing blame and fixing it.
Which is what the invasions did. Cries of "Patriotism" drowned out all else.
If so, the invasions and wars prolonged those cries.

But I digress...

Funny thing that, although this knowledge of these radar holes was around
and known for a very long time, no one has thought to examine this factor
for so long.

This is going to provoke quite a bit of new theorizing, in the attempt to
understand what this new feature means in the scheme of things. Hats
off to Rob for bringing it to the fore. thumbsup.gif handsdown.gif

Obwon







Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Jun 12 2011, 11:57 AM
Post #30





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 560
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



To hear the Bumble Planes, press here

Obwon rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cheap Shot
post Jun 13 2011, 01:02 PM
Post #31





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 11
Joined: 26-August 07
Member No.: 1,857



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 9 2011, 08:43 PM) *
Listen to your own words at 36 seconds, in the following recording.


<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars="audioUrl=http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Scoggins_Phantom_AA11.mp3" src="http://www.google.com/reader/ui/3523697345-audio-player.swf" width="400" height="27" quality="best"></embed>

That is your voice... yes?

If you are now claiming you heard AA11 still airborne from FAA HQ, why did you tell NEADS the report came from Washington Center on Sept 11, 2001?

I stand corrected I never listened to the tape that carefully. I did say Center, but I heard it from FAA HQ and I called NEADS eith the information. So another mistake that I made on that day, I'll add it to my list, I should have said HQ.

Cheap SHot
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cheap Shot
post Jun 13 2011, 01:35 PM
Post #32





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 11
Joined: 26-August 07
Member No.: 1,857



QUOTE (Sergio @ Jun 9 2011, 08:32 PM) *
I would like to take this opportunity to ask you some questions related to an interview you gave some time ago on 911 myths. It's exactly the same issue discussed in this topic, so it would be great if you could provide some additional information I need.



First you say:
I took the information I received and called NEADS almost instantly, can't tell you who I told that to, I talked with so many people there the whole day.

Then you say:
From my point of view the aircraft was heading south at low altitude and we had lost radar, my only guess was he was heading for Washington DC.

Was it an information or was it just your point of view then? Which of these statements within the same interview is true? This makes a big difference.
You said there was no target on the radar, right? Nor you can recall any identified source for that information (the name Dave Canoles only emerged later thanks to a researcher, according to your own words). Right? Now my question is: how can someone call NORAD to inform that a target he never saw on the radar (your own words) is flying from New York to Washington somewhere over New Jersey (your own words), assume that such a target is Flight 11 (who apparently had crashed into the North Tower more than half an hour before) without any real information or any reliable identified source? Are you telling us it is normal to inform NORAD based on pure assumptions? Was your task as military liaison at Boston FAA to inform NORAD also about hear say or pure speculations? Sorry, but I can hardly believe this and nothing you said so far helped much to clarify my doubts.

Moreover, I can hardly imagine how someone at FAA HQ or Washington Center could mistake the missing Flight 77 with the phantom track of Flight 11. At 9:21 (the time you called NORAD) apparently nobody in Washington or in the USA knew about the position of AA-77. Flight 77 was lost at 8:56 somewhere between the Ohio and Kentucky border. Indianapolis ATC believed it crashed. Wherever Flight 77 was at 9:21, in no way it could be between New York and Washington DC and honestly I can't figure out how someone, no matter who or from where in the telcom, could make such an assumption. How could a plane which had been lost hundreds of miles West of Washington be mistaken with a plane flying North East of Washington and coming from New York at 9:21? You had no target on the screen, you had no clear identifiable source you could recall at a glance, you had no reliable information. In spite of this, you called NORAD at 9:21 informing that Flight 11 was still airborne somewhere over NJ. In my humble opinion, either your call was based on some real information you're hiding us for some unknown reasons or we must conclude that it is a normal practice for military liaisons to call NORAD and give false reports based on pure speculations, which of course I can hardly believe.

Sorry, I don't mean to be aggressive nor I am blaming you for anything. I understand you made 40 calls to NORAD that day, I understand how frantic those moments must have been. Still I find there are a lot of blatant contradictions in your story and your answers so far have been very vague and unclear.

First was it personal point of view or Information, it was both, the information about AAL11 still being in the air, second my point of view he was flying loa en route to Washington. The last radar hits I had the aircraft was low and slow, and he was near JFK near the coast my assumption was DC.


1st paragraph
Never called NORAD I called NEADS, which is Rome, NY and under the authority of NORAD. I based my assumption on the last heading I saw the AAL11 traveling, I did see the aircraft all the way towards Long Island, and my realiable source was FAA HQ. I never assumed the flight that had hit the tower at this exact point was none other than AAL11 until FAA HQ stated on the phone that AAL11 was still airborne. I was not in a court of law so I could give two hoots about hear say and speculation. At this time we had been told of another possible three hijacks en route from Europe, I wasn't going sit on my arse and speculate or contemplate what was being said over a Security telcon at FAA HQ, I had information and I felt it was my duty to pass it on. Don't care to much about your doubts either, but thats besides the point.

2nd paragraph
I don't beleive they confused AAL77 with the possible location of phantom AAL11. I know a little of what occurred in Indy Center, but I am no means an expert on the matter. The only real information I got was from the Telcon, I had one airline United who confirmed that thier aircraft had hit the tower. I have another airline American Airlines who won't confirm a thing about thier aircraft. So when I received a call that it was still airborne I had no other choice but beleive it was true, I di not assume, and I had no other choice but to pass it on to NEADS.

3rd paragraph
I'm used to CT's questioning everything that happened that day, and I admit to mistakes as in the previous post. I have nothing to lie about, but I won't go around and around on the same subject. It give me a headache. I didn't have to come over to this site, and I know much of what I say here will be ridiculed, but I was thier on 9-11, I lived it and I have nothing to hide. The opportunity is there for P4T bloggers to ask me questions. If some one gets really bad here I'll just ignore them or go away. Nothing against others who have posted here, but you can ask questions to a controller who worked 9-11 or you can beleive someone who was at Boston Center 30 years ago. As far as contradictions bring them forward and I will try to clear them up for you, try numbering your questions it will make it easier on me now that I am old and gray.

Cheap Shot
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jun 13 2011, 05:24 PM
Post #33



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Hello Colin. Hope you had a nice weekend.

QUOTE (Cheap Shot @ Jun 13 2011, 01:02 PM) *
I stand corrected I never listened to the tape that carefully.


I gave you the recording 3 times over the past two pages.



QUOTE
I did say Center, but I heard it from FAA HQ and I called NEADS eith the information. So another mistake that I made on that day, I'll add it to my list, I should have said HQ.


I think you are mistaken again. The call you had with FAA HQ is also well documented.

In your own words...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkGBE0AM5BI

The above call is the call you had with NEADS where you reference "6 SE of the White House" (then you later claim it was "6 SW"). You say in the above recording that you just got off the phone with FAA HQ. It appears you are confusing the above call with the earlier call you made regarding AA11 still airborne "...somewhere over NJ", where you sourced Washington Center.

Regardless, you cannot provide a direct source (name) for the original claim which is basically what I was initially asking. This is pertinent and should alarm even you as such a report ("AA11 still airborne... somewhere over NJ") was bogus (one could even call it disinformation intentionally being spread through the system) which caused all eyes to focus on a Phantom aircraft coming in from the Northeast, and away from the real threat penetrating Wash Class Bravo from the west. It also caused Langley Fighters to be launched out over the Atlantic, instead of direct to DC. It wasn't until there was an explosion at the Pentagon that the Langley fighters turned inbound to DC, much too late to do anything. Langley fighters were called to battlestations more than 30 mins prior to the attack on the Pentagon. Plenty of time to intercept had they got airborne instead of being fed disinformation. Again, it's all covered in our film with audio and radar data provided by govt agencies.

Now, for perhaps the fourth time....

Can you please explain to us why ATC would turn two eastbound aircraft from separate paths, nearly 180 degrees westbound, to fly virtually in formation with two other transport category aircraft flying in opposite direction?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jun 13 2011, 05:36 PM
Post #34



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Cheap Shot @ Jun 13 2011, 01:35 PM) *
1st paragraph
Never called NORAD I called NEADS, which is Rome, NY and under the authority of NORAD. I based my assumption on the last heading I saw the AAL11 traveling, I did see the aircraft all the way towards Long Island, and my realiable source was FAA HQ.


Yet you cannot name a direct source. See reply above.

QUOTE
I never assumed the flight that had hit the tower


Wrong again Colin. Listen carefully please (so I don't have to post it another 3 times).

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Scoggins_...Impact_0854.mp3 - 2.1mb download or click play...


The above is your voice, yes?


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Confirmed_AA_Into_WTC.mp3 - 1.0mb download or click play...


QUOTE
So when I received a call that it was still airborne I had no other choice but beleive it was true, I di not assume, and I had no other choice but to pass it on to NEADS.


But yet you cannot provide a direct source/name.

QUOTE
I'm used to CT's questioning everything that happened that day, and I admit to mistakes as in the previous post. I have nothing to lie about, but I won't go around and around on the same subject. It give me a headache. I didn't have to come over to this site, and I know much of what I say here will be ridiculed, but I was thier on 9-11, I lived it and I have nothing to hide. The opportunity is there for P4T bloggers to ask me questions. If some one gets really bad here I'll just ignore them or go away. Nothing against others who have posted here, but you can ask questions to a controller who worked 9-11 or you can beleive someone who was at Boston Center 30 years ago. As far as contradictions bring them forward and I will try to clear them up for you, try numbering your questions it will make it easier on me now that I am old and gray.

Cheap Shot


Colin, no one has ridculed you. You have been treated with respect. However, when you ignore questions repeatedly, ignore sources we give you (I had to gave you the audio three times and transcribe it for you before you actually acknowleged and listened to it), it shows the readers that you don't have any respect at all in anything we have to say and perhaps are here to only toot your own horn. It's up to you if you wish to stick around and answer questions, but please don't threaten us (eg, "Be nice to me or i'll leave!") nor call us names such as "CT". Many here are Americans just like you, many of which have served in our Military. We are trying to be as polite as possible to you and show you respect. Please treat us the same. If you continue your evasive and holier than thou attitude, I will personally have no problem showing you the door. But i guarantee you, you will not be able to escape these questions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cheap Shot
post Jun 13 2011, 09:27 PM
Post #35





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 11
Joined: 26-August 07
Member No.: 1,857



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 11 2011, 07:24 PM) *
Hello Colin. Hope you had a nice weekend.



I gave you the recording 3 times over the past two pages.





I think you are mistaken again. The call you had with FAA HQ is also well documented.

In your own words...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkGBE0AM5BI

The above call is the call you had with NEADS where you reference "6 SE of the White House" (then you later claim it was "6 SW"). You say in the above recording that you just got off the phone with FAA HQ. It appears you are confusing the above call with the earlier call you made regarding AA11 still airborne "...somewhere over NJ", where you sourced Washington Center.

Regardless, you cannot provide a direct source (name) for the original claim which is basically what I was initially asking. This is pertinent and should alarm even you as such a report ("AA11 still airborne... somewhere over NJ") was bogus (one could even call it disinformation intentionally being spread through the system) which caused all eyes to focus on a Phantom aircraft coming in from the Northeast, and away from the real threat penetrating Wash Class Bravo from the west. It also caused Langley Fighters to be launched out over the Atlantic, instead of direct to DC. It wasn't until there was an explosion at the Pentagon that the Langley fighters turned inbound to DC, much too late to do anything. Langley fighters were called to battlestations more than 30 mins prior to the attack on the Pentagon. Plenty of time to intercept had they got airborne instead of being fed disinformation. Again, it's all covered in our film with audio and radar data provided by govt agencies.

First of all I had a great weekend my grandson's 9 year-old baseball team won thier two key games and are now the number one seed in the city tournament.

I heard the above recordings all three times and I even went back to youtube to hear it again, and I said "I stand corrected that I did say Washington Center on the recording that you have above"; however, I had not talked to Washington Center at all up to this time period, I receved the call over the Security telcon that was running from Dave Canoles office. There were several people in that office and I do not have a source of the person's name that told me AAL11 was still in the air. When you mention later that I may be confusing this call with the call where I stated the direction from White House, I did not mistake that call, it was the same telcon. I had been on that telcon for about 30 minutes up to that point, I never got off it, it was on speaker phone for Dan Bueno and myself. Joe Cooper was also near by and listening to the same telcon.

As far as the planes out of Langley they were launched becasue of the phantom AAL11 call. I don't see how that could be disinformation when this is the information that generated the scramble call. As far as the wrong direction that was a lapse in some one not passing the target information to FACSFAC VACAPES who put them on the standard scramble route out of Langley.

Prior to my call to NEADS at I beleive 9:27 regarding the aircraft reference "6 SE of the White House" and then later I state "6 SW" no one knew about AAL77's location. A controller at Dulles had just picked up the fast moving primary target about the same time.

Also at that time NEADS realized that they had departed out over the water and were not heading towards DC. They were heading 090 I beleive which had nothing to do with the location of the phantom AAL11.

I have no idea whose mistake that was, whether it was VACAPES or Washington's Center or NEADS, my understanding was they were going to be launched towards DC.

I have to agree with you on the battlestation call they should have been launched in enough time to get to DC. However I disagree with you that they were routed over water for the Phantom AAL11, they were requested to go to DC, but someone miscommincated that request, who I don't have a clue.

I want to apologize for the use of the term CT, I didn't think it was offensive. I have to agree with you as well that I am sure that a lot of your bloggers are very proud ammericans, military and exmilitary. Don't get me wrong either, I think you should all ask ton's of questions, if there is something out thier that doesn't sound right then it should be questioned. I'm here just giving you information on what I know. You don't have to beleive it. Do with it as you beleive.

Cheap Shot P.S I have not looked at the radar piece again that you asked me to look at, I think I may have some free time tomorrow and I will look at it again. I'll try to answer your question about the 180 degree turns.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jun 13 2011, 09:54 PM
Post #36



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Cheap Shot @ Jun 13 2011, 09:27 PM) *
When you mention later that I may be confusing this call with the call where I stated the direction from White House, I did not mistake that call, it was the same telcon. I had been on that telcon for about 30 minutes up to that point, I never got off it, it was on speaker phone for Dan Bueno and myself. Joe Cooper was also near by and listening to the same telcon.


Colin, the above recordings are not all the same recording. Please slow down, read, and listen to them all again.

In one call to NEADS you claimed Washington Center told you that AA11 was "Somewhere over NJ". In a later call to NEADS, you then told them an aircraft was "6 SE of the White House" and claimed it came from FAA HQ. These are different calls at different times. Hence the reason you specified two different locations and sources. You then later claimed here on this board you never sourced Washington Center whereas you were proven "mistaken".. What could have possibly made you think to tell NEADS that the report of AA11 came from Washington Center when you claim you were on the phone with FAA HQ the whole time?

Again, whether or not you were on the phone with FAA HQ or Washington Center during this entire time is moot as you cannot provide a direct source. As of right now, the only person with a name who has provided information into the system which turned out to be untrue, is you. No offense, but those are the facts.

QUOTE
As far as the planes out of Langley they were launched becasue of the phantom AAL11 call. I don't see how that could be disinformation when this is the information that generated the scramble call.


Wrong again Colin. They were initially called to scramble at 0908 direct NYC due to the second tower impact. It was then changed to battlestations. After "AA11 still airborne somewhere over NJ" was repeated through the system... they were launched at 0924 and told to hold in W-386 until someone was able to get a pin-point location for the Phantom AA11. Once an explosion occurred at the Pentagon, Langley fighters were then turned direct DC from W-386 out over the Atlantic. Again, it's all on radar according to RADES and well covered in our full film.

Had the bogus disinformation regarding a Phantom AA11 not been repeated through the system, the Langley Fighters would have launched at 0908 direct NYC. When Washington noticed a high speed target penetrating Washington Class Bravo from the west, Langley fighters would have been over DC at that time, in perfect position to intercept.




QUOTE
Prior to my call to NEADS at I beleive 9:27 regarding the aircraft reference "6 SE of the White House" and then later I state "6 SW" no one knew about AAL77's location. A controller at Dulles had just picked up the fast moving primary target about the same time.


Are you claiming controllers do not notice targets which penetrate the west side of the Washington Class Bravo nearly 30 miles west of IAD?

And if they didn't on 911, why do you think that was?



QUOTE
I want to apologize for the use of the term CT, I didn't think it was offensive.


Are you claiming you don't think people use the term "CT" in a negative connotation? Perhaps you feel it is a neutral term, or perhaps even a positive term? C'mon, Colin, please don't play such a game. You'll lose. Clearly you also have not read the mission statement on top of our home page. I suggest you do before you offer more stereotypes which you "think" may not offend.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org

Pay close attention to the underlined sentence.

QUOTE
I have to agree with you as well that I am sure that a lot of your bloggers are very proud ammericans, military and exmilitary. Don't get me wrong either, I think you should all ask ton's of questions, if there is something out thier that doesn't sound right then it should be questioned. I'm here just giving you information on what I know. You don't have to beleive it. Do with it as you beleive.


I think you may want to review the list of people who are reading your posts.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

QUOTE
Cheap Shot P.S I have not looked at the radar piece again that you asked me to look at, I think I may have some free time tomorrow and I will look at it again. I'll try to answer your question about the 180 degree turns.


Anytime you're free Colin, feel free to answer. As you can tell, I don't have a problem reminding you, considering this is perhaps the fifth time you been asked, and perhaps the third time you replied, "I'll look at it tomorrow". Some might call such behavior... evasion. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jun 14 2011, 03:48 AM
Post #37





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 369
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jun 14 2011, 11:24 AM) *
Colin, the above recordings are not all the same recording. Please slow down, read, and listen to them all again.

In one call to NEADS you claimed Washington Center told you that AA11 was "Somewhere over NJ". In a later call to NEADS, you then told them an aircraft was "6 SE of the White House" and claimed it came from FAA HQ. These are different calls at different times. Hence the reason you specified two different locations and sources. You then later claimed here on this board you never sourced Washington Center whereas you were proven "mistaken".. What could have possibly made you think to tell NEADS that the report of AA11 came from Washington Center when you claim you were on the phone with FAA HQ the whole time?

Again, whether or not you were on the phone with FAA HQ or Washington Center during this entire time is moot as you cannot provide a direct source. As of right now, the only person with a name who has provided information into the system which turned out to be untrue, is you. No offense, but those are the facts.



Wrong again Colin. They were initially called to scramble at 0908 direct NYC due to the second tower impact. It was then changed to battlestations. After "AA11 still airborne somewhere over NJ" was repeated through the system... they were launched at 0924 and told to hold in W-386 until someone was able to get a pin-point location for the Phantom AA11. Once an explosion occurred at the Pentagon, Langley fighters were then turned direct DC from W-386 out over the Atlantic. Again, it's all on radar according to RADES and well covered in our full film.

Had the bogus disinformation regarding a Phantom AA11 not been repeated through the system, the Langley Fighters would have launched at 0908 direct NYC. When Washington noticed a high speed target penetrating Washington Class Bravo from the west, Langley fighters would have been over DC at that time, in perfect position to intercept.






Are you claiming controllers do not notice targets which penetrate the west side of the Washington Class Bravo nearly 30 miles west of IAD?

And if they didn't on 911, why do you think that was?





Are you claiming you don't think people use the term "CT" in a negative connotation? Perhaps you feel it is a neutral term, or perhaps even a positive term? C'mon, Colin, please don't play such a game. You'll lose. Clearly you also have not read the mission statement on top of our home page. I suggest you do before you offer more stereotypes which you "think" may not offend.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org

Pay close attention to the underlined sentence.



I think you may want to review the list of people who are reading your posts.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core



Anytime you're free Colin, feel free to answer. As you can tell, I don't have a problem reminding you, considering this is perhaps the fifth time you been asked, and perhaps the third time you replied, "I'll look at it tomorrow". Some might call such behavior... evasion. smile.gif



Dear Mr Balsamo.

I have not had the opportunity to view the full DVD --Intercepted-- and do not want to get out of step with your discussion with Mr Scoggin, so have addressed this question to him through you.
There was report of a --helicopter--, and a --light aircraft-- from an airtraffic control operations manager at (TRACON), New York terminal, that they observed in the period immediately the North Tower was impacted.
The track reported, was from an air field some 70 miles north of Manhattan.
The report was later discarded, the information recorded, "destroyed", apparently.

The report I have read suggests a "Mr White" --suggested over a "teleconference" that the first aircraft to hit the WTC was a small twin engine plane.

My question is, was Mr Scoggin, aware of the --helicopter-- and --light two engined aircraft-- being tracked on radar, contemporaneous, with what is known as "AA11" --?

Would this possibly be why Mr Scoggin had a continued interest in an aircraft flying away from New York, which he could have thought was "AA11" --?


Robert

This post has been edited by 23investigator: Jun 14 2011, 03:54 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jun 17 2011, 01:04 AM
Post #38





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 369
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (23investigator @ Jun 14 2011, 05:18 PM) *
Dear Mr Balsamo.

I have not had the opportunity to view the full DVD --Intercepted-- and do not want to get out of step with your discussion with Mr Scoggin, so have addressed this question to him through you.
There was report of a --helicopter--, and a --light aircraft-- from an airtraffic control operations manager at (TRACON), New York terminal, that they observed in the period immediately the North Tower was impacted.
The track reported, was from an air field some 70 miles north of Manhattan.
The report was later discarded, the information recorded, "destroyed", apparently.

The report I have read suggests a "Mr White" --suggested over a "teleconference" that the first aircraft to hit the WTC was a small twin engine plane.

My question is, was Mr Scoggin, aware of the --helicopter-- and --light two engined aircraft-- being tracked on radar, contemporaneous, with what is known as "AA11" --?

Would this possibly be why Mr Scoggin had a continued interest in an aircraft flying away from New York, which he could have thought was "AA11" --?


Robert


Dear Mr Balsamo.

In the same spirit as my previous post, I bring forward this bit of information, which I have just placed on Youtube as, 23investigator aircraft proportion tower two.
With respect I believe that it could be pertinent in the consideration of 'aircraft swap'.

Tower Two is the most prolific situation of 'said' video footage and still photograph.
I have no doubt at all, that all the images that have been released, still and moving, have been concocted.

For some considerable time what I was seeing in the 'editing mess' was strongly suggestive that the actions taken, were to disguise a KC10 Extender or DC10 -30, involved in the 'actual impact' with Tower Two.

I now believe I was in error in this consideration, although it does appear that there is a 'mish mash' of composed image that has been used to disguise the actual aircraft that 'impacted' Tower Two.
For that I am sorry, particularly to any body associated with the KC10 Extender, previously and currently, please accept my apology.

But, that does not alter the fact that the images, which are many and varied, are not of a Boeing 767 222.

More and more it is appearing that the actual aircraft that has been disguised in the images, is much smaller than a Boeing 767 222, and of course even smaller again compared to a Boeing 767 300 or KC 10 Extender.

There are a number of factors which I am currently working through which point to a particular aircraft, but until I can be as absolutely definite as possible, I am not bringing forward any more consideration of what I believe the aircraft to be.

It is sufficient to say that the aircraft is not United Airlines Boeing 767 222 N612UA, which of course means that there had to have been a swap over with that aircraft, if in fact it was involved in the overall deception.

With admiration of all you are doing, and the many others involved with you.

Robert






Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
woody
post Jun 18 2011, 02:28 PM
Post #39


Woody Box


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 264
Joined: 28-August 06
Member No.: 20




QUOTE (Cheap Shot @ Jun 14 2011, 01:27 AM) *
Prior to my call to NEADS at I beleive 9:27 regarding the aircraft reference "6 SE of the White House" and then later I state "6 SW" no one knew about AAL77's location. A controller at Dulles had just picked up the fast moving primary target about the same time.


If my recollections are correct, your warnings came at 9:37, i.e. immediately before the impact, and more important, Kevin Nasypany reported an unknown primary target at 9:36, east of the White House, even before your messages. Am I right?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maha Mantra
post Jun 21 2011, 03:46 AM
Post #40





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 70
Joined: 29-April 07
Member No.: 1,004



Hi Colin, glad to see someone who was there, interested in shedding light into the events of 9-11.

I was wondering, since you also mentioned potential hijacked aircraft coming from the east, from Europe, why only a couple of fighters were launched and redirected or put into a holding pattern ?
I am very interested to hear from authorities regarding the state of rediness and what the standard or non-standard responsiveness was on 9-11.
Not because I'm a Russian spy, but because I am an ordinary American citizen who may harbor misconceptions about reality involving US military rediness and day to day monitoring of aviation activities.

I kind of think it was and/or is real stupid to have cockpit doors that are so easy to break through, and their (now you've got me doing it) may be an entire list of stupid things that go unnoticed in the realm of national security.

Is it possible that there is a lot of complacency and even a bureaucratic aspect even to national security positions ?

Is there more interest in getting along and scratching each other's back than there is in doing a superb job ?

I'm just curious. Could there have been a lot of ass-covering after the events of 9-11, and could it be so well, crude, that we wouldn't think anything about trashing Iraq to hold that up as an example that the government is really capable of protecting the US citizen and showing some might after the fact and towards the wrong country ?

I digress, sorry. But specifically, on such an occasion when there are potentially multiple hijack events with obvious horrific intent, wouldn't there be a lot more fighters scrambled to cover the potentially numerous hostile attacking targets ? Two to four fighters just seems like a small response. I think American taxpayers would want to know if their monies are being squandered.

If not conspiracy theory, should it be 'stupidity theory' ?

Thanks Colin. I appreciate your time and perhaps tolerance of what might appear to be aggressive inquiry.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 31st July 2014 - 09:31 AM